TORIES

[Eilatan]

if they get in:

They'll end HIPS so my husband will loose his job
He's actually a teacher but can't get work cos the last time they were in they brought in 'cover supervisors' ...unqualified people who are doing our jobs
They do away with the 15 hours nursery care...all we do is wait for our little un to be 3 so we can just break even each month... but no doubt these evil so and sos will take it away to pay for the w(b)ankers ineptitude
I expect they do away with the trust funds too
Teachers wages will be frozen ...
Over 60s cold weather payments? Ha! last time they were in Edwina Currie advised them to knit woolly gloves!
Any tiny power the unions have been able to claw back will go...
We'll be back to teaching kids that homosexuality is wrong and if a piece of literature wasn't written by someone dead, white and male it isn't worth reading
...if they get in I'm jacking it all in... going to sell the house and live in a caravan... no way am I working on Maggie's farm again!

Don't be fooled by all that caring for the family rubbish. All those c care for is making their own kind richer.

PLEASE don't vote for them.

A typical British attitude toward blaming the ills of this country on anybody but "one's self".

If it isnt single mums, it's the homeless, or immigrantgs, even pensioners now are unaffordable, and descrimination is how hitler started.

ivanhoe I thought we were blaming a handful of black families in Detroit! At least that's what some at least are trying to convince us.

Funny, there's actually an article in The Times this morning about Cuba. www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7007070.ece

I've always hated Blair's showmanship - yet Brown was out to "defraud" the state as far back as his student union days - he published a booklet on how to rip off benefits and of course he was in charge of the book-keeping and allegedly wouldn't let poor Tone in on what he was going to release in the budget.

I always though John Smith was a very decent man, such a shame.

Peachy Tell me more about the workhouse, because if it's got free hot water, Wifi and good showers I might join you. Especially if it's someone else's responsibility to fix the boiler!

given that publicly owned companies never make a profitand some have historically been ruined by nationalisation) i think it fair to conclude had they stayed public, they' still be a drain on the public purse.

and broadly speaking economic policy has indeed remaind the same since 1979.

i am amused that people think think people on higher than average incomes need CTC - i mean it was nice to get, say £80 a month whilst earning the national average - but not such a big difference one couldn't live without it?
Currently ctc/wtc keeps us afloat on a wage greatly below that though...

i regularly talk to businesses of all shapes and sizes. not one has expressed a prefernce - frankly unles you are a company interested in selling the future labour govt ID cards, or installing satellite tracking systems in everyones cars (road charging - a bit of an infringment of civil libertires, no?) it makes toss all difrence to them.

either way, there will be spending cuts, and freezes. incidentally, job for job, the public sector outpays the private by about £1kpa across the board. so a little freeze wouldn't hurt so much? A labour govt wil not have any more cash to splash than a Conservative one.

on surestart - wasn't the main failure of it that it was accessed most by the better off and did not in fact reach the people it was intended to target? certainly in our area you have to get your kids name down @18mo if you want that place - and mostly non-working mums have taken it up (as if you need childcare to work, just a short morning or afternoon is no use to you) and definitely not the poorest but those smart enough to access the system.

In my life's experience, its always the poor who give more than the rich do to charity

ah yes and Cuba..aren't dictatorships great....

it's not socialist anyway. best described as Castroist....

EdgarAllen Phew! At least we're not living under a dictatorship in the UK. n.b., I did not write that under duress and if I'm found tomorrow dead after going for a walk in the hills please note it is wholly unrelated to present government!

Have enjoyed reading this thread. skihorse don't worry too much about that sink estate - I'm on one of the most notorious in Basildon (beggers can't be choosers/where the council housed me) and it's fine. It's quiet and peaceful plus I have nice neighbours. Locals look at me quzzincally when I tell then it is oaky. . The local police officer here told me that "it's not the place it was as all the bad'uns have been moved to the other side of town" lol.

We live dnest to a sink estate (actually I grew up on one but this is a different story and different estate).DH and the neighbour were chased after shouting at some thieves breaking intoa local house,Police said 'don't do that, whehn we caught them they had machetes', dad said 'your mistake was living next to the estate, if they'd known you were a or on the estae you'd be fine'

I was threatened in my alst job 9smething par for the course when you visit alone ) and after threatening to break my kneecapsthe hbloke spotted my maiden name (I used it professionaly...) 'Is X your Dad?'@yep' @and X, Y, Zyour uncles?'(dad actually had 15 siblings) 'yep'

'Ooh.sorry about that, wanna cup of tea?'

So I think the basic reasoning for that is if you are seen as one of the gang you're OK on a sink estate, if not perhaps not so much.

Ski you can have my place at the workhouse but the nearest equivalent I visited didn't have wi-fi,sorry (not that I have anything that works on it TBH). Bloody horrible palce TBH,poor family I was working with were 4 to a room (bed sit and kitchen in one)expecting new baby (and not housed before baby). dad was working, rent always paid but landlor defaulted didnt tell them and they were evicted. Poor sods.

Anwyay DH has given me a stern lecture about basing my self esteem on the amount weclaim instead of the long hours he works and the fact that with 2 asd kids CA works out at 17p an hour. He may have a point.

Oh and the only reason I don't want to go into HA housing is that much of it is outside the compcatchment and ds2 has enough to put up with being a young carer, don't want him tolose all his friends as well.Wecan't have anyone around becuase ds1 loses it,so on that basis Dh and I will happily put in extra time at the business to stay in catchment - if - never- really- secure private rented, I guess we'relucky becuase we didn't owe anyone a penny when things went awry: thats when you end up severely stuffed I think.Rather save or not have TBH, learned the hard way mind many years ago (and cleared it all,credit collapse anything but my fault LOL- JIS someone looking for group to blame fancying English immigrants to Wales as a blame target?)).

HIPS from the outset were a joke. Any Estate Agent and would-be buyer and/or seller of a property knows HIPS are a mere irritating formality that has absolutely no relevance to the house buyers/sellers transaction...Much like a marraige certificate?

I am seriously concerned by the statement someone made earlier that the Tories are the party for those who are willing to "take responsibility" for their lives, and that the natural consequence of taking responsibility is "amassing wealth".

What a load of superficial, financially-obsessed bollocks. So making money is the most important element of 'taking responsibility' for our own lives, and that's why the Tories are so happy to reward people who amass wealth with yet more wealth? Isn't that akin to the attitudes that lead us all into the economic doom which we're now trying to crawl out of?

Of course money and financial wisdom/ stability are important, that goes without saying. But good God if you make that the centre of what you consider 'taking responsibility' for your life it will turn you into the sort of self-obsessed ape who gives no concern to the things that really matter in life, and therefore damages people wherever they go. Our society is self-centred and damaged enough without those kind of shallow values being promoted any more than they already are.

Totally agree Speedy.

I take responsibility for my life but with a son who has high functioning autism and a husband who walked out it's hard.

Taking responsibility means being around for my son which means not working as many hours, which means social housing instead of private.

Yes I get some state benefits (free prescriptions and dental care) but beyond that I get bugger all apart from an increased tax credit allowance - is that classed as a benefit)?

No wealth being amassed here I can tell you ...... just bills and the constant struggle of paying them. Cancelling direct debits because the tax credit doesn't go in till x date this month and then re-setting them up again once I can pay - all to avoid extortionate bank charges.

So if any Tory wannabe would like to come and tell me how I can "take responsibility" I'd be interested to see what they say. Stick my son in after school club (more money) and go back to full time work while watching him flounder. I'd amass wealth alright but at the expense of my son who will then cost society (the taxpayers) far more.

Exactly JP.

I takeresponsibility entirely formylife-Ispendmy days fighting for my children and often others like them.I'vecared for Dh in the past (with no financialsupport at that time) and contribute in valid ways- that parent in schoolwhen others at work? That's me then.Fair enough,wecan't allmake it, but it is a contribution to society and the community,and reponsible.

I think we have a responsibility to try to be as financially independent as we can be.That will necessarily vary,and those who are prevented fromachieving it don't choose that. The ones that choose are a separate breed entirely and should be kept firmly in their own little box.

But a responsibility toearn very much- nah. how effective would our society be without teahcers,nurses, social owrkers, TA's,carers.... selecting that as as your employment is not an irresponsible decision.

Since writing that last post I've been thinking two things:

Firstly - apols if it came across as rather abrasive in tone! Had a tough weekend and was typing whilst knackered - never advisable, like texting whilst drunk.

Secondly, while I've apologised for the style, I stand by the content of what I said. This question of wealth driving our society is a serious matter which causes hefty problems at all levels. JP and Peachy have already written about why their choice to put money second is the best way of taking responsibility for their lives and those of their families. On an international level I've already mentioned the greed-driven worldwide recession.

Then there's the effect on families where a focus on amassing wealth is prioritised and the parents are oblivious to the impact that this is having on their children. A good friend of mine works across the country in a number of the UK's highest-performing independent schools, supporting staff, parents and students. He has told me countless times about the severe social and emotional problems that many of these children are suffering as a direct consequence of their parents' focus on earning more and more money.

Somehow I expected that people had grown out of this attitude post the boom of the 80s, so it feels like a cliche to write this way, but the fact is that they simply do not make the time to spend with their children; their children feel abandoned and unwanted (literally abandoned sometimes - parents jet-setting off on regular holidays and leaving their young teens at home alone). So the children get into heavy drinking, unprotected sex, drug-taking, etc etc. Not to mention the shattering effect on their self-esteem, which colours everything they do, and their inability to relate well to others.

So while these rich kids may be ultra-privileged in a financial sense, they are also emotionally bereft, and are paying the price of their parents' hunger for amassing wealth. And of course society will also pay the price, both now and in the future.

It's a travesty that the press only appears to report the social and emotional problems of children in the poorer classes; the professional opinion of my friend is that each class is just as damaged and needy - but the wealthier have the resources with which to hide it.

oh stuff and nonsense. there have always been people (regardless of wealth, or occupation) that spend more time on their work than on their kids (career teachers and social workers every bit as much as their private sector counterparts.)

it is not a new phenomena, nor one proven to be on the increase...

though i see echoes of the 'career women make bad mothers' argument in your thought process!

If you see echoes of anti-career women, Edgar, you clearly have an overactive imagination as I am also a working mother .

You've clearly completely missed my point. I have said that chasing after money first and foremost is bad for families and society. Nowhere did I say this was new or on the increase. In fact I did refer to the 80s boom, saying I thought we'd grown out of this - in other words I have said it is definitely an old phenomenon.

Edgar, I think your imagination is definitely running away without you .

Eilatan, Yes but many people want to be rich also, hence the former Tory government's 18 years in office.

But what the British dont appear to understand is that a Tory tax cut means services suffer as under Thatcher and Major.

It took the British people 18 years to wake up to the Tories, and even then New Labour continued their policies.

Amid the sheer horror of the thought of a Tory government (17 millionaires in Cabinet, no less!), have a laugh at what others think of Cameron... mydavidcameron.com/
or have a go yourself.... www.andybarefoot.com/politics/cameron.php

MANATEEequineOHARA - the Labour Party trashed the economy and parroting the line "its a global thing" won't help. GB's incompetence and stupidity have seriously undermined this country. There is a hilarious thread elsewhere on MN about pensioners in poverty. GB as Chancellor stole billions of pounds from UK pension funds when he changed the rules on how pensions are taxed, consequently he destroyed our pensions industry and he has single handedly descimated the principle of saving money in this country.

Can we all just spend a moment remembering life before 1997? When you could telephone your GP at night or at the weekend. When the streets weren't filled with CCTV and/ or traffic wardens. When NHS dentists actually existed. Before we launched an illegal war in Iraq. Before GB devised an offocial inflation index that leaves out food, housing and energy costs. Yeah right, things were so tough under the Tory government.

It also seems to me that the OP - "they'll end HIPs so my husband will loose his job" - represents one of the most pernicious aspects of GB's time in government - the hiring of nearly one million extra public servants who will, of course, vote labour to keep the salaries, perks and work they now have. Together with the fact that the givernment has created a culture of state dependency means I really doubt the Tory party can win the next election. But just to make sure, the labour party now want to change to a system of PR rather than first past the post.

Hear hear Footstamper.

A potential 17 Tory millionaires in cabinet? [clutches sides] Because the Labour party are living like church mice? Fettes is a bit like Grange Hill and Mandy buys his suits in Burton?

That's just about the most bizarre argument I've ever heard.

Labour's new campaign: "Just say no to educated people who've done well for themselves representing YOU! Vote for us and you'll get the idiot you deserve!"

Footstamper Yes, I was amazed when a dear friend (but sadly a card-carrying one-of-them) with a PhD in political science changed his entire view on PR following his attendance at the Labour party conference this year.

Er.... I couldn't find an NHS dentist before 1997 as they had all gone in to private practice. I have an NHS dentist now though in a newish NHS surgery set up 5 years ago in our area.

And the other thing I note before 1997 was the mass selling off of social housing with no allowance for building more. There are now hundreds of families chasing every property which comes up.

Swings and roundabouts - personally I think the Labour government have done some very good things as well as soe questionable ones but the rest has been a continuation of Tory policy.

I am no "head in the sand" person - I have read the plans on the Conservative website and they look really good but I do wonder where they will find the money to do all the things they are promising. We are in global recession (despite any mistakes GB has made) and there will be cut after cut no matter who is in power.

Nearly 13 years in government, mostly with a majority of 100+ - no will to mess about with electoral system whatsoever.

Approximately 60 sitting days in Parliament before he has to hold an election, 10% down in the polls, and all of a sudden PR is looking enticing.

Gosh, I'm wondering why. If they can't win honestly, they'll win anyway they can. Still not convinced there will be a general election this year - we will have some dreadful terrorist threat which means it wouldn't be safe/appropriate.

FootStamper you talk a great deal of sense. And tuition fees? Remember when you could go to university for free?

"Education, Education, Education" my arse cheek.